Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Rehabilitation medicine in Korea has improved significantly; however, the rehabilitation medical delivery system still lacks well-established continuity and comprehensiveness. Since 2000, Japan has implemented a convalescent rehabilitation ward system, with continuous improvements in policies and criteria based on clinical needs. This study compared the rehabilitation systems of Korea and Japan, focusing on institutional standards and the scope of target patients in order to explore directions for enhancing the Korean system.Current Concepts: Japan applies a multi-tiered reporting system for rehabilitation wards, categorizing wards and adjusting reimbursements based on performance indicators such as functional improvement rates, discharge-tohome rates, and rehabilitation effectiveness indices. Additionally, Japan’s policies encompass a broad range of target diseases and flexible admission criteria, improving accessibility. In Korea, the scope of target diseases is relatively narrow, limiting opportunities for patients to receive appropriate rehabilitation treatment.Discussion and Conclusion: Korea could benefit from adopting a multitiered system and performance-based reimbursement structure, as seen in Japan’s model. Expanding the range of eligible conditions and reviewing certification requirements can enhance the accessibility and quality of rehabilitation services. These changes are expected to foster an environment in which patients can receive timely and comprehensive rehabilitation care, thereby facilitating physical recovery and reintegration into society.

Following the government’s unilateral announcement to increase medical school quotas, serious concerns are rising over the development of medical education and future healthcare in South Korea. Medical experts are disappointed by the lack of transparent decision-making. Unlike major developed countries that establish specialized bodies with expert involvement to set physician workforce policies, the Korean government plans to create a “human resource supply and demand estimation adjustment system” without sufficient consultation with medical professionals. This study analyzes Japan’s policy process regarding medical school quotas to derive implications for establishing governance for physician workforce supply and demand in Korea.Current Concepts: In Japan, the Physician Supply and Demand Subcommittee, mostly comprising medical experts, conducts in-depth discussions on adjusting physician supply and addressing regional disparities. Their discussions are transparent and publicly disclosed, influencing policy decisions such as gradual adjustments to quotas and measures to improve physician distribution.Discussion and Conclusion: Japan’s approach demonstrates the importance of involving medical experts in policymaking and ensuring transparency. The Japanese government collaborates with medical professionals to accurately project physician supply and demand, and adjusts medical school quotas gradually. In contrast, Korea’s abrupt plan to increase quotas without thorough expert consultation may lead to unintended consequences. It is imperative for the Korean government to form consultative bodies centered around medical experts to engage in in-depth discussions, ensuring that policies are realistic and effectively addressing challenges such as population decline and regional healthcare disparities.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence (BMI Korea Co., Ltd., thrombin cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel matrix) compared to the established agent, Floseal Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter, thrombin-gelatin matrix) in achieving hemostasis for spinal surgeries, with secondary objectives to assess additional efficacy and safety. Methods: This clinical trial was a multicenter, randomized, subject-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Investigational drugs were administered to the first and second bleeding sites of each participant (or only to the first site if a second site was absent), evaluating hemostasis success rate within 10 minutes and the time to achieve hemostasis. Subsequent visits were conducted for safety assessments. For noninferiority test, a 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI) was used; the test group was deemed noninferior if the lower limit exceeded -10%. Results: This trial showed a 97.10% success rate in the test group and 96.05% in the control group for primary efficacy. The 95% CI (-4.90% to 7.44%) confirmed the test drug’s noninferiority. Time to hemostasis showed no significant difference between groups. All adverse events, adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse events were statistically similar between groups (p=1.000, p=0.243, and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion A novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence, demonstrated an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of Floseal.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence (BMI Korea Co., Ltd., thrombin cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel matrix) compared to the established agent, Floseal Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter, thrombin-gelatin matrix) in achieving hemostasis for spinal surgeries, with secondary objectives to assess additional efficacy and safety. Methods: This clinical trial was a multicenter, randomized, subject-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Investigational drugs were administered to the first and second bleeding sites of each participant (or only to the first site if a second site was absent), evaluating hemostasis success rate within 10 minutes and the time to achieve hemostasis. Subsequent visits were conducted for safety assessments. For noninferiority test, a 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI) was used; the test group was deemed noninferior if the lower limit exceeded -10%. Results: This trial showed a 97.10% success rate in the test group and 96.05% in the control group for primary efficacy. The 95% CI (-4.90% to 7.44%) confirmed the test drug’s noninferiority. Time to hemostasis showed no significant difference between groups. All adverse events, adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse events were statistically similar between groups (p=1.000, p=0.243, and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion A novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence, demonstrated an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of Floseal.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence (BMI Korea Co., Ltd., thrombin cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel matrix) compared to the established agent, Floseal Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter, thrombin-gelatin matrix) in achieving hemostasis for spinal surgeries, with secondary objectives to assess additional efficacy and safety. Methods: This clinical trial was a multicenter, randomized, subject-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Investigational drugs were administered to the first and second bleeding sites of each participant (or only to the first site if a second site was absent), evaluating hemostasis success rate within 10 minutes and the time to achieve hemostasis. Subsequent visits were conducted for safety assessments. For noninferiority test, a 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI) was used; the test group was deemed noninferior if the lower limit exceeded -10%. Results: This trial showed a 97.10% success rate in the test group and 96.05% in the control group for primary efficacy. The 95% CI (-4.90% to 7.44%) confirmed the test drug’s noninferiority. Time to hemostasis showed no significant difference between groups. All adverse events, adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse events were statistically similar between groups (p=1.000, p=0.243, and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion A novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence, demonstrated an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of Floseal.

Rehabilitation medicine in Korea has improved significantly; however, the rehabilitation medical delivery system still lacks well-established continuity and comprehensiveness. Since 2000, Japan has implemented a convalescent rehabilitation ward system, with continuous improvements in policies and criteria based on clinical needs. This study compared the rehabilitation systems of Korea and Japan, focusing on institutional standards and the scope of target patients in order to explore directions for enhancing the Korean system.Current Concepts: Japan applies a multi-tiered reporting system for rehabilitation wards, categorizing wards and adjusting reimbursements based on performance indicators such as functional improvement rates, discharge-tohome rates, and rehabilitation effectiveness indices. Additionally, Japan’s policies encompass a broad range of target diseases and flexible admission criteria, improving accessibility. In Korea, the scope of target diseases is relatively narrow, limiting opportunities for patients to receive appropriate rehabilitation treatment.Discussion and Conclusion: Korea could benefit from adopting a multitiered system and performance-based reimbursement structure, as seen in Japan’s model. Expanding the range of eligible conditions and reviewing certification requirements can enhance the accessibility and quality of rehabilitation services. These changes are expected to foster an environment in which patients can receive timely and comprehensive rehabilitation care, thereby facilitating physical recovery and reintegration into society.